A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks?
My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?

Okay in this scheme where are my programs installed /bin, /sbin/ /usr/bin /usr/sbin?

Your programs are installed in /.
If you need details about where did every file go exactly, ask the package manager.

If by "your programs" you mean the executables for user programs your have installed (vlc, firefox, etc...) they are in /usr/bin.

Why are some things mounted under /mnt and others under /media?

What's exactly being mounted in /mnt?
Your automount daemon will use /media, /mnt is there to provide a place for your manual test mounting of filesystems.

Most of the programs install the executables under program files so yes it does make more sense.

Most programs install most files under program files? OK, I can feel the consistency right there.

Please, installing a program in Windows=double click icon, Mac=Double click icon, Ubuntu, if it is synaptic great, very easy to do just search for the file. However, if it isn't in there like skype, or chrome beta, or numerous other programs, then it is a crap shoot were it can be as easy as editing an apt source file or as complicated as a never ending loop of dependencies.

Installing a program on linux = single click icon. There, win

I've installed both skype and chrome beta through synaptic, but anyway... downloading dependencies is not any worse than finding out you need some runtime libraries on windows.
This might strike you as odd but I've done more dependency hunting on windows than on linux, and there was no getdeb to save the day.

Your programs are installed in /.
If you need details about where did every file go exactly, ask the package manager.

I agree if a program is in apt, great every thing is super easy however, when a program needs to be installed out side of the repositories, then that becomes a problem.

If by "your programs" you mean the executables for user programs your have installed (vlc, firefox, etc...) they are in /usr/bin.

Why are some things mounted under /mnt and others under /media?

What's exactly being mounted in /mnt?
Your automount daemon will use /media, /mnt is there to provide a place for your manual test mounting of filesystems. My shared ntfs partition is mounted under /mnt while usb drives go under /media????

Most of the programs install the executables under program files so yes it does make more sense.

Most programs install most files under program files? OK, I can feel the consistency right there.

Please, installing a program in Windows=double click icon, Mac=Double click icon, Ubuntu, if it is synaptic great, very easy to do just search for the file. However, if it isn't in there like skype, or chrome beta, or numerous other programs, then it is a crap shoot were it can be as easy as editing an apt source file or as complicated as a never ending loop of dependencies.

did you have to edit synaptic repository files? I bet you did. I windows I click download, wait for it to appear on my desktop then double click and I am good to go. Not so in ubuntu or any other distro

Installing a program on linux = single click icon. There, win

No, its not, even if the program is in the repository, open synaptic, search for program, install(but, that actually is very easy and not the argument i am making, it is for the programs not in apt.

I've installed both skype and chrome beta through synaptic, but anyway... downloading dependencies is not any worse than finding out you need some runtime libraries on windows.
This might strike you as odd but I've done more dependency hunting on windows than on linux, and there was no getdeb to save the day. "

I do find it it odd what programs require you to look for dependencies? I use windows and linux everyday and outside of a download of .net, I rarely have to go find any files. Jut download and double click

Did you add it manually to fstab?
My "shared" (not actually) ntfs drive is mounted on /media/disk.

did you have to edit synaptic repository files? I bet you did. I windows I click download, wait for it to appear on my desktop then double click and I am good to go. Not so in ubuntu or any other distro

It's exactly that way if you download a deb file.
On the other hand if the package is available on synaptic, it's obviously faster and easier.

Adding a repository takes longer than just downloading the deb, but then you save time every time it updates.

No, its not, even if the program is in the repository, open synaptic, search for program, install(but, that actually is very easy and not the argument i am making, it is for the programs not in apt.

I was talking about the case where you had to download the deb package from the web, as you would do with an exe installer.

If it's available in synaptic then yes, it's faster as you don't even have to hunt it down through web pages.

I do find it it odd what programs require you to look for dependencies? I use windows and linux everyday and outside of a download of .net, I rarely have to go find any files. Jut download and double click

Last time it was some HP corporate software on Windows 2003. It needed some package I had to search in the MS web just to be able to run the installer.

It also utterly fun when some program tells you half way through the install process that it requires IIS/snmp/whatever, and you have to go out of your way to locate the windows cd, install the components and restart the install process. Considering some HP software enjoys wasting 1+ hours of your life just to get installed, imagine how fun it's to come back and realize you have to start again

did you have to edit synaptic repository files? I bet you did. I windows I click download, wait for it to appear on my desktop then double click and I am good to go. Not so in ubuntu or any other distro
Installing a program on linux = single click icon. There, win

Ooops...., ok lets go to adobe.com, download installer navigate to download dir and doubleclick AdbeRdr9.1.2-1_i486linux_enu.bin. Now we get some "Open with..." dialog asking for an application to handle the filetype ".bin". Ooops....

At this point any non-expert is simply lost. Of course you all can now start with lengthy explanations why this was the wrong approach, something is not configured, etc, etc,.... BUT, in reality this is a testament to the very MESS that is linux.

- repository has no acrobat (for religious reasons)
- .bin is not known as a filetype -> FAIL
- there is no standard way to mark executable files
....oh wait, there is...*does chmod 775 on AdbRd9-xxx.bin, doubleclicks* -> FAIL

You have to rename to blabla.sh and the filemanager will offer "execute" option (thunar by the way, but still *linux* right?)